The September 1995 raid on the Geneva Freeport premises of Giacomo Medici brought to light a major archive of some 4000 photographs. These images, some Polaroids, have been used by the Italian authorities to identify objects that have passed into public and private collections. By my estimate less than 1% of the items identified in the photographs have been returned to Italy.

Other major sets of photographs have been seized from a Basel warehouse (approximately 10,000 images) and on the Greek island of Schinoussa. Research on this material will undoubtedly lead to further identifications. A related set of images show objects once handled by the Swiss-based conservator Fritz Bürki.

Forty years have passed since the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. In spite of this there have been major scandals relating to the acquisition of recently-surfaced antiquities by public museums and private individuals. The Italian government has obtained the return of over 100 antiquities from North American collections and these have been displayed in a series of high profile exhibitions. Greece and Egypt have made successful claims on other material. Some dealers appear to be willing to handle material that surfaced along similar routes in spite of this increased awareness of the problem of looting. North American museums have now adjusted their acquisition policies to align them with the 1970 Convention.

Mike Pitts ("Has the stone been saved?", The Guardian April 29, 2010) has updated the story on the decision by Bonhams to withdrawn the Anglo-Saxon stone from its sale ("It was the Guardian wot won it. Perhaps.")

Pits writes:

At the moment it isn't exactly clear what's happened to it, either, although archaeologists are hopeful that the cross will eventually find its way to Peterborough Museum. A Bonhams spokesman suggested that a private treaty deal may have occurred, in which the seller comes to a direct arrangement with a buyer; very likely someone who would donate it to the museum. The seller, Nick Evered, would not comment yesterday, although he hardly sounded like a man who had just won the lottery.

A delicate wreath made of fine gold oak leaves with acorns, of the type worn by Alexander the Great's father, Philip II of Macedon, is one of the highlights of Bonhams sale of Antiquities on April 28 in New Bond Street.

This stunning artefact, estimate £100,000-120,000, may once have graced the head of a ruler or dignitary over 2,000 years ago. "The fact that this delicate collection of fine gold leaves and acorns formed into a wreath has survived the centuries is almost miraculous," says Madeleine Perridge, Antiquities Specialist at Bonhams. Previously in a private collection since the 1930s, "it is a beautiful example of a type that is rare to the market."

The collecting history was provided in the catalogue entry for lot 240:

Private Swiss collection acquired between the 1930s-60s.

Acquired by the present owner at Sotheby's London, July 11th, 1988, lot 83.

It should be pointed out that it is unlikely that Philip II was buried in Tomb II at Vergina (see here).

Why was this stunning artefact left unsold? And in which anonymous private Swiss collection did this wreath reside between the 1930s and 1960s?

Earlier this month (April 12) I contacted the Home Office about the sale of the assets from Robin Symes. I received this statement: "The matters you have raised are the responsibility of the Ministry of the Justice".

I spoke to the Home Office yesterday and it appears that this information was incorrect. The Ministry of Justice is not dealing with the assets ... it is the Home Office.

The Council for British Archaeology (CBA) has been in touch today. It appears that they wrote to Bonhams yesterday (April 27, 2010) and asked that the Anglo-Saxon stone be withdrawn from sale 'and to allow the owner to receive it back without financial penalty'. The Church of England had also asked for the withdrawal of the stone from the sale.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Lord Renfrew has now commented on the appearance of recently-surfaced antiquities at Bonhams. In an interview for The Guardian (Dalya Alberge, "Roman sculptures withdrawn from auction amid fears they are stolen", April 27, 2010) Renfrew commented "such sales are maintaining London's reputation as a clearing house for looted antiquities". (See his earlier speech in the House of Lords: "It is scandalous that this practice continues".)

Cambridge researcher Christos Tsirogiannis is interviewed:

"The destruction leaves objects out of context. Even if [an object] is a masterpiece, our duty is to give people history."

Renfrew calls for dealers to reveal the identity of vendors: "That would be a step towards clarifying the problem".

The article also reflects on the role of the Art Loss Register and its place in the identification of "stolen" antiquities.

Chris Martin, Chairman of the Antiquities Dealers Association (ADA), has been commenting to the press on the Roman Marble Statue that was withdrawn from tomorrow's sale at Bonhams (lot 137). It appears that the Italian authorities had tried to retrieve the statue through the Spanish courts ("some five or so years ago").

If this is the case, it raises a number of issues.

Had the vendor disclosed to Bonhams that the statue had been the subject of a court case in Spain? Were the staff at Bonhams aware as a result of this case that the statue had once been handled by Giacomo Medici?

If so, had the staff at Bonhams informed their management that the statue was ex-Medici?

If the staff at Bonhams were comfortable that the present vendor had title, why did they withdraw the piece from the auction once its collecting history was made public?

Bonhams now need to disclose the name of the vendor of the Roman statue.

The Medici Polaroid is one significant part of the collecting history (or "provenance") of the statue. It seems hard to deny it.

Why were Bonhams prepared to take the risk given the bad publicity that was generated the last time the handled ex-Medici material? Have any others lots been consigned by the same vendor? What are their collecting histories?

I undertake not to purchase or sell objects until I have established, to the best of my ability, that such objects were not stolen from excavations, architectural monuments, public institutions or private property.

Could staff at Bonhams have detected that they were about to offer material handled by Giacomo Medici?

I suspect that a check was made with the Art Loss Register (ALR). But as I pointed out - in connection with a piece of Lydian silver on offer from Bonhams in October 2007 - "the ALR will indicate if the object has been stolen from, say, a private collection in Knightsbridge, but not if the item comes from a previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological site". If the Medici Roman Youth had come from a pillaged archaeological site, it would not appear in the ALR register.

So any responsible dealer would then want to make sure that they were not likely to handle recently surfaced antiquities. Bonhams had experience of this in October 2008 when they tried to sell the Graham Geddes collection. Two of the Apulian pieces, an oinochoe and a bell-krater, surfaced at Sotheby's in London for the December 1986 sale. This in itself should alert anybody if they were asked to sell a statue that had passed through the same sale. Moreover, a quick check with Peter Watson's Sotheby's: Inside Story (1997) would have shown that Medici was linked to this very sale. It is therefore surprising that the staff at Bonhams did not enquire further to ensure that the Roman youth did not appear in the Medici archive of photographs. (Remember, it took me about about one hour to have my suspicion confirmed.)

Was this a 'one off'? It would appear that Bonhams did not learn from the Geddes sale. In that instance, researchers were alerted to the likely presence of Medici material because the name 'Geddes' was inscribed next to a lot at Sotheby's - and illustrated in Watson's Sotheby's: Inside Story.

Readers will have to accept that the staff at Bonhams have conducted "due diligence" (in the words of the ADA Code of Conduct) "to the best of their ability".

Monday, April 26, 2010

Looting Matters invites its readers to vote on the sale of the Anglo-Saxon stone at Bonhams this Wednesday. Click here to cast a vote if you are reading this via email, RSS, reader or some other syndicated method.

I have been following the forthcoming sale of antiquities at Bonhams with more than a passing interest. I drew attention to the way that Bonhams had reminded us that some of the archaeological objects would have "interesting" collecting histories.

I see that Mike Pitts of the Guardian has an important report ("Antiquities: an ancient cross to bear" / "Save our Anglo-Saxon Stone!", April 26, 2010) on lot 286, "late Anglo-Saxon stone section of a cross-shaft". It comes from "St Pega's Hermitage in Peakirk, Northamptonshire".

Pitts writes:

Professor Rosemary Cramp, from Durham University, is leading a project to catalogue all surviving Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture. As it happens, she and Joanna Story, a lecturer at the University of Leicester, are in the process of recording Northamptonshire - hence a visit the Evereds recently received from a geologist in Cramp's team. St Pega's cross, says Story, is a typical piece from the important Peterborough school of Anglo-Saxon art, and one of very few sculptures that can be linked to a place whose significance in Anglo-Saxon times is known.

Graham Jones, an Oxford University researcher and student of early Christian saints, says the stone is "part of the core historical heritage of the country".

So what is it doing in a saleroom - from where it could in theory end up anywhere in the world, and, as academics most fear, disappear from public view?

Bonhams established it [sc. the cross] was not part of the listed building, which would have prevented the sale: the church had simply sold it with the house without restrictions, and it's not physically attached. ...

But there is a more important issue here.

Has the cross been "removed from a building or structure of historical, architectural or archaeological interest where the object has at any time formed part of the building or structure"? Would the cross be protected under the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003? (Just to remind readers, anybody convicted of handling such material can be imprisoned for a maximum of seven years.)

The present owner now realises the issues and wants to withdraw the cross from the sale - but is reported to be faced with a £9000 plus "consignment fee" if the sale does not proceed. Bonhams needs to seek some goodwill from the archaeological community.

So how about waiving the consignment fee so that the present owner can present this historically important cross to the Peterborough Museum?

The Parthenon Marbles appeared in the review of the papers on Radio 4. The Sunday Express picked up on the fact that Nick Clgg, leader of the LibDems, has backed the campaign to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece ("General Election 2010: EU zealot Nick Clegg's bid to return Elgin marbles", Sunday Express April 25, 2010). The issue has been raised because Clegg is seen as a threat by Labour and the conservatives.

The issue highlights his [sc. Clegg's] strident pro-European views and helps shatter his attempt in Thursday’s leaders’ debate to portray his party as moderate on EU affairs.

Nick Clegg, a Liberal Democrat MEP, was chairing the conference and said: "It is high time the Marbles were restored to their proper setting."
"The current situation is a bit like displaying the clock from Big Ben in the Louvre in Paris - Brits wouldn't tolerate it, and neither should we expect the Greek Government to remain silent."

I am not sure that the Parthenon Marbles will be a deciding factor in the election - the leaders need to address the UK deficit as well as issues such as education and health. However it is interesting to note European policy being defined by the party's attitude towards cultural property.

The UK Ministry of Justice has taken over responsibility for handling the assets seized from the stores of Robin Symes (at least that is the position according to the UK Home Office). The decision by Bonhams to act honourably by withdrawing three ex-Symes Roman funerary busts from its sale next week draws attention to the inexplicable position adopted by the (out-going?) UK Government to sell off objects that are being claimed by Italy.

Friday, April 23, 2010

The three Roman funerary busts that were due to be auctioned at Bonhams next week have been withdrawn: lots 399-401 ("This lot has been withdrawn"). All three had the same collecting history:

"Acquired on the London art market in 1998. Accompanied by a French export licence."

The three had been identified by Cambridge researcher, Christos Tsirogiannis, who drew them to my attention in May 2009; they had failed to sell last year and were back on the market.

It can now be revealed that the three pieces featured in the Robin Symes archive seized on Schinoussa. The images clearly show traces of dirt indicating that they were fresh out of the ground.

This latest news brings into question the value (if any) of "a French export licence". The indication of such a licence was perhaps meant to reassure potential buyers. What is more interesting is who purchased the other three pieces last summer?

Had the staff at Bonhams conducted a due diligence search on the three busts? Were they aware of the Symes connection?

And if so, the staff at Bonhams were hardly unaware of the implications of handling Symes material given the events of October 2008.

The presence of Medici and Symes material at a London auction in 2010 is a matter of serious concern.

ImageComposite images of three Roman limestone funerary busts from the Robin Symes "archive".

Last week, he said, he turned over to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security "all the evidence that I have to prove that this mask was stolen, and we have to bring it back."

On Wednesday, St. Louis Art Museum spokeswoman Jennifer Stoffel, said the institution "had correspondence with Hawass in 2006 and 2007 and has not heard anything on the matter since."

At the time, she said the museum shared information with Hawass on the mask's provenance and said "we would do the right thing ... if there was something that refuted the legitimacy of the provenance."

The St. Louis museum has said it bought the mask from an art dealer in the United States in 1998 after checking with authorities and with the international Art Loss Register. It said it also approved the purchase with the Egyptian Museum.

The press release for the sale of antiquities at Bonhams in April 2010 reminded us of some "interesting" provenances. One that caught my eye was linked to lot 139, "A Roman marble figure of a barbarian water carrier". The provenance is given as "Ex European private collection. Subsequently part of an Australian collection acquired in the 1960s." It was then "On loan to La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia 1981-86."

La Trobe University has featured as a venue for previous antiquities offered by Bonhams. For example, an Attic bell-krater offered in April 2009. It had, in fact, been part of the Graham Geddes collection and had been left unsold in the October 2008 sale at Bonhams. Indeed several pieces from the Geddes collection are known to have been on loan to La Trobe (including a Lucanian nestoris subsequently acquired by Boston's Museum of Fine Art and returned to Italy).

At the end of March I contacted a senior academic at La Trobe University to discover more about the piece. This is the reply: "I don't recall any such sculpture on loan to La Trobe".

Can we be certain that the water carrier was indeed on loan to La Trobe? And if this information is questionable, what do we make of it being in an Australian private collection in the 1960s? Did the staff at Bonhams check the information or did they take it "on trust"? What was their due diligence process? (And remember their track record.)

There are echoes of the Australian sea-farer who consigned part of the tomb of Mutiridis to Bonhams for the sale of antiquities in May 2008.

The staff at Bonhams should be starting to double-check the collecting history for the water carrier as a matter of urgency. And what is the name of the anonymous Australian private collector who has consigned it?

There is something very disheartening when you see the results of looting. Objects ripped out of context. Pots broken into fragments. Sculptures smashed. So much damage to supply the market and the appetites of museums and private collectors.

Some collectors will claim that they are preserving the past, but really their desire is to own the past (and to ignore the consequences of the "owning" process).

Do auction-houses and dealers care how recently surfaced antiquities arrived on the market?

ImageDirt encrusted Roman limestone funerary bust that passed through the stock of a European dealer.

When the catalogue for the April 2010 sale of antiquities at Bonhams appeared my eye was drawn to a Roman marble statue (lot 137). I was particularly struck by the fact the piece had surfaced on the market via Sotheby's in London in December 1986. The sale was one that contained a number of pieces directly linked to Giacomo Medici. Within an hour a colleague had responded to my hunch and sent me an image of the statue that had featured in the Medici dossier seized in the Geneva Freeport.

Bonhams can hardly have been unaware of the significance of the toxicity of antiquities that had surfaced at this particular sale. It should be remembered that two of the lots that were withdrawn from what can only be described as a disastrous sale of the Geddes collection had also come to light in exactly the same way.

It remains a puzzle why the antiquities staff at Bonhams were not suspicious of this particular collecting history (or "provenance"). What measures did they take to check that the piece had not passed through the hands of Medici? Or had they hoped that nobody would notice?

This raises a major issue for the management of Bonhams. Did they fail to learn any lessons from October 2008? Were they deaf to Lord Renfrew's comments in the House of Lords?

Or is there a perfectly innocent reason why an annotated image of the Roman statue should be in the Medici dossier?

ImageComposite of Polaroid seized from the Geneva Freeport and a statue due to be auctioned at Bonhams in April 2010, "Acquired at Sotheby's London, 8th-9th December 1986, lot 287".

FEEDJIT Recommended Reading

Feedback

Some Recommended Books

About Me

David Gill is Professor of Archaeological Heritage and Director of Heritage Futures at the University of Suffolk. He was a Rome Scholar at the British School at Rome and a Sir James Knott Fellow at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He was subsequently part of the Department of Antiquities at the Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge, and Reader in Mediterranean Archaeology, Swansea University. He holds the Archaeological Institute of America's Outstanding Public Service Award (2012).